September 26, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:08] The rules of meeting management. Please. The Dan, where'd you go? There you are. Hello. Yeah, I'm here. Let me pull it up and Devon, I'll pull up the slides. Great. So thank you, Chair. Thank you. I see we have at least one member from the public joining us today. Thank you so much for taking the time to attend the meeting. My name is Vivian and my role here is to help facilitate the public engagement parts of these meetings. And these rules, I'll share now in place to help us achieve. A balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. So after I read these out we'll start with open comment from community members and then there is one public hearing item on the agenda tonight. First we want our participants to know that the city is striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations and that we worked with the community to develop these expectations for meetings.

[1:12] Give me 1 s, I'm just promoting. Lisa Smith. And other stuff. Sorry about that. This vision is really. Designed to make sure that we are able to promote free conversation and dialogue while also recognizing we want to make sure everyone who is participating feels safe and welcome. We want to ensure we make space for these different viewpoints in our meetings because we do believe it leads to more informed decision-making. We have a lot of information on the city website about the productive atmospheres vision and I'm going to narrow in on a few things we need to know for this meeting tonight. We have a number of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder revised code and we have some general. Guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our participants this evening. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business.

[2:06] We will not allow any participant to make threats or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obsenities, racial epithets, another speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it. Difficult for us to continue is prohibited and we do also ask the participants identify themselves by their first and last name. Next slide. So we're in the Zoom Webinar format and this allows our participants from the public to speak at designated times, but we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. There's no pre-existing list for signing up to participate today. So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at appropriate times to raise your hand and we'll let you know when that is. And on your screen, you'll see a couple of different ways to raise the virtual hand. First at the very bottom of the screen you'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items and if you click on the hand icon it'll raise a hand next to your name and will know to call on you.

[3:03] And if you have an expanded menu, you can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. I don't see anybody participating by phone, but I will monitor that for. Those instructions if needed later. So. Before maybe closing just to stress at the open, comment section coming up next is meant, to address issues not on the agenda tonight. And also the Q&A function that we have here, you can contact us through that if you have any, like any logistical problems with. A platform or any process questions but is not meant. For discussions about the content of items on the agenda. Those should be brought up during the public hearing. Thank you. Over to you, Chair. Okay, thank you very much, Vivian. Alright, if you've raised your hand for public participation. We can get started with that. And do you have any hands up? Yeah, we do. We have Becky Davies. So please go ahead, Becky.

[4:03] You have 3 min for this open comment and Devon, I'll just pull up. The timer. You would have to mute yourself from your end, Becky. Please go ahead. Okay, great. Thank you. Hi planning board. My name is Becky Davies and I'm a member of TAB, the Transportation Board. And I'm here tonight to say hello and introduce myself and also give you a heads up that I'll be reaching out to each of you. Individually via email to let you know about an initiative that tab members and some other board members are supporting to ask the. 2024 city council. So the council that will be elected in November plus council members that are continuing on. To ask them to add an item to the 2024 work plan to update the city's off street parking ordinances. Now this is something that you know significantly affects transportation and has has been a problem for achieving some of our transportation goals.

[5:02] But we are aware that it affects many areas of the city's work and and certainly planning and development is a big one so you're probably more familiar with these ordinances than most most boards. So we wanted to bring this item to you to consider we would love for you to endorse this request to council that they add this item to the work plan in 2024 and I want to emphasize that this is not a. We're not asking that all of planning board collectively vote rather this would be as individuals you can say yes I support this would be as individuals you can say, yes, I support this would be as individuals, you can say, yes, I support this request to council, in the same way that individual board members are allowed to endorse candidates for council, for instance. So it's not a formal city item, so it wouldn't have any kind of formal vote. So I will follow up with you via email to give you more specifics on exactly the text of the request we want to send a city council on this topic.

[6:07] And would love to have your support, and demonstrate that, you know, this is an issue that affects many areas of the city and something that's just due, due for an update, in our code. Thank you so much for, your consideration and feel free to ask me any questions you might have via email. Thank you. Thank you so much, Becky. No other hands are raised for now. Thank you. Alright, thank you. We're going to go on to approval. The minutes. Has everyone looked at any revisions in August first, 2,023 planning board? Draft minutes. Everyone okay, we have to vote on it. So, Kurt. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mark. Laura. Lisa. George.

[7:01] Yes. And Sarah is a yes. All right, thank you. The planning board minutes from August eighth. Yes. Anybody have concerns with what we were sent? Alright, Kurt. Mark. Laura. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. George. Lisa. And let me yes. Okay. Sarah, just real quickly, one of those 2, I was not present. And so maybe I should not have voted. On approval of those minutes down. And I without having them in front of me. Anyway, I just as a formality. Whichever one where I was not present, if, if, Devin is here, Yeah. Bye. And all right, thank you. And George was also not, you were not present August first, and neither was George. Yeah, yeah. And, just hold on.

[8:03] Yeah. Sorry, I just closed my own. Document. Lisa was not present on August eighth. I was thinking one of them. I was like, I shouldn't be voting on one of these, but I wasn't sure which. Alright, so I. Okay. Alright, so Devin, if you will remove Lisa, what, Laura, you're back on. What do we need to do? Oh, I just wanted to make sure that we accounted for those who are not absent abstaining. So it sounds like we're on the right path. We're, to go. Okay. Yes, please mark me as abstaining even if I said yes if I wasn't actually there Thank you. Yeah. Same for me. Thank you. Alright, item 4, discussion of dispositions planning board call-ups and continuations. We have a call up item, final plot to subdivide the property at 2 4 1 5 vine place to create 2 lots lot one is 22,390 square feet and lot 2 is 23,913 square feet.

[9:01] Flat top subdivision case number. TEC 2 0 2 2 dash 0 0 0 6 2. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before September, the 20 seventh, 2,003. The preliminary plot was approved through case number L you are, 2,002 2 dash 00050. Does anyone want to call up this item? Seeing no up, Mark. I don't wanna call it. But I do have a comment and I thought this was also a time to ask any questions or comments. Is that correct? I just wanna say that. I asked some questions about this. Earlier this year when we went through, an annexation of this lot. And I went and visited the site. I ended up asking the same same question so but of Shannon who were taking it over and anyway what I was really curious about is we have 2 cul-de-sacs that, but each other.

[10:12] Going east west and here we have this big beautiful line it's gonna be subdivided into big homes. That's all fine. I'm all for subdividing really large laws. What is concerning me? And I just want to make this as a comment is that when you have these call to sacks, this this particular represents land use patterns that are just awful for pedestrians and cyclists. And, and I don't ever want to see this. Coming up. In the future and maybe we should have really I should have called it up earlier this year under the annexation.

[11:02] But if someone, if a school kid was to from their home on buying. Bye. Fine to crest you. It would take 21 min. If they were to walk from the adjacent address. On. Some 10 feet away. They were taken if there were pedestrian access to connect. The 2 call the it would take 10 min less. So half the time. And that kind of 10 min each way, 20 min a day. Twice as long distance-wise is an item that creates. More car traffic parents are more likely to drive their kids to school and create the never-ending queue of parents dropping off their kids.

[12:03] So I just want to all to be aware of the land use pattern. That we've created and we're not going to solve it with this particular items. Why not calling it up? But as we evaluate sites in the future. Sorts of connections that allow children to walk to school are really critical. And this is an example of a really dumb and failed land use pattern that is problematic for for everyone. Involved. So that's my comment. Okay, thank you very much, Mark. Alright, we will not be calling up this item. Now we can move on to the public hearing agenda. I sorry, I just had one question on this also. I'm not interested in calling it up, but I had a discussion with staff regarding zoning for affordable housing and there was some change to the minimum.

[13:06] Lot exposure to a street. I just wanted to confirm, is this a case where they cannot divide into more than 2 lots because of that 30 foot minimum. Frontage on the street. Charles, I think that's a question for you. Yeah, thanks for the question, Kirk. Yeah, it would be. The 30 foot frontage is really designed not just for access but also the spacing that we need for residential utilities to be installed. Yeah, okay, thank you. You bet. Okay, any more questions? Alright, we're gonna move on to the public hearing item. And just before I start reading what I'm supposed to read, we set aside a total of 90 min for this. 30 min for. Staff presentation and Q&A and the way we thought we would do this was.

[14:12] That we could ask questions during the presentation so that we get some, give and take. Rather than wait until the end of the presentation. So that'll be 30 min and then 60 min if we need it for. Board discussion and then the vote. Okay. Agenda title for 5 a public hearing and recommendation to city council regarding proposed ordinance 8 6 0 one amending chapter 913 inclusionary housing section 9, minus 2, dash 14. Site review and section 9 dash 16 dash one general definitions BRC, 1,981 modifying affordable housing requirements and incentives and setting forth related details. Sloan will be presenting and Jay will be on deck. And, So these take it away slung.

[15:05] Okay. We pull up the presentation. And also slung, I'm sorry, I had sent you a question which would be helpful for you to answer just before your presentation. Throughout the dock throughout the material you reference. Affordable housing. Are you does that mean permanently affordable housing or are you talking about market rate housing or could you at least make sure when you present to us you differentiate between the 2. Right, so in the context of this presentation on the IH program. Affordable housing refers to permanently affordable housing. Okay, thank you very much. Because all units produced or IH would have a deed restriction in perpetuity. Great. Thank you so much. Sure. Okay, well, good evening, everyone, and, we're excited to be here tonight.

[16:03] As you said, I'm Sloan Roberts and I'm also joined by Jay Segna and Michelle Allen will also be helping me to present tonight. So the purpose of, this. Item tonight is that. We're requesting that planning board make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed code changes within ordinance 8 6 0 1. This program update has been in progress for about a year and we're now entering the sort of implementation stage. This is an update of. A existing program that's been in effect for about 2 decades and the IH program is reevaluated and updated periodically. The last update was in 2,018. So just to sort of refresh everyone's memory. City Council identified 2 priorities related to middle income housing for the 2223 work program.

[17:02] The first was to consider updates to the. . H. Program focusing on Increasing middle income home ownership. Units and the second was to launch the middle income down payment assistance pilot. And planning board provided feedback on the majority of the changes included in the ordinance earlier this month. However, at the meeting on September seventh, City Council directed staff to remove the proposed incentives for middle income home ownership units from the scope of the project. So based on that direction, a modification to the community benefit requirements is also proposed. To remove that penalty for not providing units on site. So just the major topics of this update are to update the cache and loo methodology. Amounts and structure to align with the feasibility analysis and the just basically nationwide best practices.

[18:02] And then adjustments to the code and regulations to clarify IH requirements sort of simplify some code language and reduce redundancies. Also staff plans to pursue a Nexus study. Hopefully next year to a that presidential linkage fee to apply the demolitions and rebuilds of homes or significant additions, but that is not part of this ordinance tonight. Just wanted to make that clear that we did get the go ahead, but it won't be part of this ordinance. So, as I said, we're in the implementation stage of the project and updating the code language to achieve the outcomes I just described. The ordnance is scheduled for first reading, before city council on October nineteenth and second reading is on November second. And if past, the changes would become effective, 90 days after adoption, so late January of next year. And this would allow staff. To implement. The procedural changes and administrative regulations. By each is unique in that a set of administrative regulations are approved by the city manager as a companion to the land use code.

[19:12] And those regulations. Get into the nitty gritty, so to speak, and set forth the procedures for administration and implementation. So in terms of community engagement, the project's been following the cities community engagement framework. The engagement and information sharing for the project was described in detail in the memo. And we're at those steps 6 and 7 at the evaluation and decision making stage of the project. So also as a reminder, the city hired Kaiser Marston Associates to support the program update. Okay, evaluated the feasibility of the current IH program and explored sort of nationwide inclusionary housing best practices.

[20:00] They also did an assessment of financial feasibility for a range of development types and tested some alternative requirements. They also, reviewed best practices and policy approaches used elsewhere. So based on their analysis. We know that there will be continued difficulty in achieving. On-site for sale outcomes. And that a modification of that cash and lose structure and methodology is necessary. To, just align the program with. Best practices. I also just wanted to put this in here to sort of point out that the IH update is running parallel with the city's other efforts to address the housing crisis. NIH program is really only one way to address, housing needs and no single program. Consol the affordable housing crisis. You know, as the board knows middle, the missing middle is housing type. And really can continue to be addressed through the zoning for housing project even though, those incentives we talked about were removed from the scope of this project.

[21:05] So, the takeaway for the ordinance under consideration tonight is that, you know, Oh well structured IH program. Just should not act to a constrained production of any one desired housing type. So for an example, they proposed square footage methodology would remove. The disincentives we currently have for smaller, more affordable market rate units. And at this point I'm gonna hand it over to Michelle to sort of go through each change individually and Michelle just let me know when you want me to move forward. Sure, will do. Good evening. Good to see you all again. Michelle Allen on the house a housing planner with Housing and Human Services. So I'm going to go through the, the proposed changes. You've seen these before. So, But do feel free to ask questions as I go through them if you would like. The biggest change probably for the program would be, changing our methodology for determining and implementing.

[22:14] To a more of a per square foot structure or more pure per square foot structure. We will adopt a feasible range, amount, that. The intent is to keep the cash and new revenues approximately the same as they have been. In the last year and then it will also include some maintenance of the program over time, including doing a feasibility analysis at least every 5 years. This is the square foot approach is, considered the best practice that's widely used. It scales better with unit size than what we have right now, which is quite clunky. It results in a more fair burden across different size units. And it avoids an incentive for larger market rate units or Islam said a disincentive for small units however you want to look at that but what we do right now is does have some unintended consequences built into it.

[23:19] The. This item is about adjusting the rents that would be required of any on-site affordable rentals that are put on site because of inclusionary housing, as you know, affordable or rental projects generally do pay cash in lieu, but occasionally we do have projects that put those affordable rentals on site. And right now, 80% of the required units would be the rent would be set to be affordable to 60% of AMI. And 20% of those units to fit to 80% of am I we're proposing to, take that second tier, that 20% smaller tier of 50% AMI.

[24:01] I mean of 80% AMI and move it down to 50. So then we would have some at 60 and some at 50. It's because consistent with Litech funding requirements. It does retain a diversity of affordable rents, but We're moving the scale down so it has a deeper, deeper affordability. And, the 80%, rent rental tier for one thing has never been used. It, it, it competes with market rents because they are at or near market. 80%, I'm sorry. Excuse me, add or near market rent and older projects. And they and because you can't use them with light tech funding the developers not interested in having rented that high level. So. They just don't work.

[25:00] So. Council did want to go ahead and, make one change to the, on site for sale. Scheme if somebody were to choose to do that. Right now most of the units would be priced at what we call low moderate. Pricing it's a fairly low pricing and so the proposal is to modify the unit price requirements to allow middle income price homes up to 120%. And so we're somebody to put for sale units on site. It's very, very rare. They would get a higher price for those units and they would help those units would help us meet our middle income goal. Yeah, go ahead. So, council wanted us to kind of drop the, scheme of onsite incentives and penalties. The biggest one is that right now half of. Half of the required for sale affordable units must be provided on site or if they aren't.

[26:09] A developer can not do that if they pay a significantly more cash in loop. This was hopefully meant to be an incentive to get units on site, but it has not been effective. So we're going to take that out. And in particular that, that additional cash and loo, if you don't put the units on site. Really exceeds the threshold for what is feasible. A cash in lieu for a development to pay so it's very counterproductive. And it may disincentivize for sale development in general. So we're going to take out both the offsite requirement and the 50% increase in cash and low if you don't do it. So you'll notice in the packet that we are proposing some a change to the community benefit language.

[27:01] It's basically a cleanup to to follow that that change that I just talked about. Because the community benefit ordinance basically says that for sale half of the 4 sale required for sale units need to be provided on site. And now that that's not in the IH code, we're just taking that out of the community benefit. Part of the ordinance, other than that, the community benefit won't change. It's still 11% more if you add additional hype through community benefit. Ordnance. So then we have a bunch of other code updates. We're going to remove the cache and leave deferral. It's a, Right now, single family homes can defer payment of cash and loo for up to 10 years or at the time of for sale. It's not been a very efficient way to meet to satisfy inclusionary housing. And not it's not not many people take advantage of it but the few people that do they, they essentially end up with a balloon payment that is problematic both for them and for us to collect.

[28:12] So. Just going to take that out and then the land dedication a little more complicated. There's a few things we would like to do with that. Basically based on the experience we had with diagonal closet taught us a few lessons we've only ever had 2 land dedications in the history of the program so live and learn with every every project that does this one would be to include, city manager approval of the proposed location. Gives us a little more control over whether we can accept the land or not accept the land. This language about being under the same site review it basically requires if land that is going to be dedicated is either within or adjacent to the market project. Sometimes the land is somewhere else elsewhere. In which case it's not a problem, it won't be under the same site review.

[29:01] But like Dagenal Plaza, if it's in or adjacent to the market project, our site review code says that they have to go into the same site review. And so what we want is to make sure that the dedicated land piece has its, is calculated and is provided its own open space so that when that property is developed, it will have the necessary open space to meet its requirements. Alright, Mark. Yep. Yep. Yeah, I just I wanna make sure this is okay that ask questions as we go along with that. Okay, my question is, I, I concur with the idea that city manager would be able to approve. Hey, a land dedication so that we don't end up with something that is undevelopable or highly undesirable or whatever. Yeah, does this allow? Or and is it through city manager discretion or somewhere else in the code? Us to accept land dedication.

[30:09] For a portion and cash in lieu for another portion. Can, can it be? Part one thing and part another or is it, does it have to be all land dedication or all cash? So, the way the code is written, it says that the land is appraised. And if there is a gap between the value of the land and the amount of cash and that the market project owes, then that that gap would be. Provided for through cash and loop. So it depends on the appraised value of the land that is being dedicated. And as far as what we're going to do or the intent will be. Right now we have a process for, for, for looking at and reviewing offsite location if somebody wants to put their units off site.

[31:01] They basically need to submit a preap. They have to answer some questions about the land. The appropriateness of the land for, for housing in particular. Then that there is an administrative review of that and then the the land that that offsite location is either approved or denied and so we would do the same thing with the land dedication. It's just that the code doesn't have it in there right now. To to do that kind of review and approval of the location. So we want to kind of tighten that up a little bit. Great, thank you. As long as we have a pause, anyone else have some questions at this moment? Alright, Michelle, please pristine. Okay. So the affordable housing design, design review is is there to ensure that any project that has affordable units in it. Does not have some type of review. There was a desire to make sure a few years ago by planning board and council to make sure that we reviewed.

[32:04] For example, off-site projects or it was it was particularly around off site. Development of affordable housing. And so we had put the threshold for. Requiring the design review at 5 units, but that's probably too low. We probably don't want to do a whole review just for 5 affordable units. I mean, for, just one affordable unit, so it's 5 total. So if we take it up to 40, that would mean 40 and a minimum of 10. Affordable units. This has never been used. Essentially, it's very hard to actually do an off-site project without going through site review, but his has happened and it wasn't considered desirable. So we're just kind of changing the scale. To, something that is probably more reasonable. And then small. Yeah, yeah, on that one. Michelle, can I just have, I'm sorry, can I just ask a clarifying question specifically about this increase from 5 to 40?

[33:06] So that seems like a pretty big leap. And I'm curious. How you got to 40 or more units being the number which site review would be would kick in for a affordable housing projects. And I realize that there are other conditions that might lead to a site review, but. Like where did that number 40 come from? So actually what I think is that 5 was a mistake. We meant 5 affordable units, but the way the code reads, it's just 5 market units, which is one affordable unit. So we definitely don't want to do any kind of, you know, site review type of review on a project that only has one affordable unit in it. But the 40 just seemed like a more reasonable number. So that would be a project with 10. Okay, and in addition to whatever.

[34:00] 10 affordable units in it. So we basically doubled it. I don't know, Sloan, do you wanna, do you wanna jump in on that? Yeah. No. Okay. No, sorry, I was trying to unle myself. I think we were also sort of Trying to take direction from, like I said, the other initiatives and trying to make good. The development of affordable housing as. Let's cumbersome and easier to develop and so we were trying to come up with a reasonable amount of yes there is a community benefit and us reviewing this for quality and for a livability. But it's not. At a scale that it would, you know. Yeah. Distance guys or you know just panelize the element of smaller developments, I guess. Just think I'm thinking of. Okay, I'm thinking of the development that's. It's north. Off sort of. Near the so the soccer fields. I don't know what it's called.

[35:04] It's very attractive, white, all white buildings and some town. I don't know which one it's called. But, and I don't know how many units are in there, but it strikes me as a relatively small. I think it's all affordable development if I'm not mistaken. So would that. Okay, it went ahead. That's yeah, that's Paylo Parkway. That was actually an annexation in the site review so that Okay, and that was, yeah, that one met the threshold for a site review. Yeah. But. Good. Okay, so met other, and then other thresholds. Okay, so will you guys be? I will you guys be. So partially, Sarah, we came up with 40 because this was really designed around an off-site. Yeah, yeah. Meeting your requirement off site. And if somebody is going to do that, they're going to probably do a lie tech project and they need between 40 and 60 units to do a light tech project. Okay.

[36:00] Got it. So that was also where that sort of 40 came in. Somebody's not going to probably put their units off site. With like 10 units or 15 units because they can't utilize the light tech financing. Okay. Okay, I appreciate that. Kurt has his hand up as well, Kurt. Yeah, does this also apply then to a VHP project? So they're just building affordable housing. It's not associated with market rate project. Okay. No, no, this wouldn't apply to funded projects like a BHP project. This is only if somebody has a inclusionary housing requirement on the market project. Got it. Thank you. Right. Yep, thanks. Yeah, and they're either gonna put them on site or off site. Yeah. Any other questions while we've taken this pause? Okay, Michelle, please, please plow ahead. Okay, so the small projects with that less than 5 units. It, that was a category created because of our kind of complex.

[37:00] A cash and loop scheme that we have right now. And we just, we don't need that, for this. Cash and by square feet. We don't need the small project category in the way it's defined less than 5 units the way it's defined there. Because we're doing square feet, not units. So it just is, will become redundant and we should take it out of the code. And then the housing inspection requirement we require projects that have affordable units on site or offsite to. To do housing inspections. These types of inspections are not done, in the city like development review inspection. Group because basically they're inspecting to make sure that all of our contractual requirements are met. And so we do it right now and it's enabled through the regs, but we thought we would just sort of. Strengthen it by putting you know, a line item in the code that says that the housing inspection inspections are required.

[38:04] And Bert has his hand up. Curt. Cool. Sure. Thanks. Yeah, I actually have a question somewhat related to the previous one. You stay in the original, in the, when you're talking about the cash and loo methodology. You say that rates will step down on the sliding field for smaller projects. Which is sort of, it seems like it's a little bit related to number 9. Okay. Is that that's still the plan and if slow can you talk about the justification for that? Sure. They're, sort of, a distortion when you get down to very small amounts of square footage. Because you have this overlap. Between What how many square feet a single family home can have and then a multi-family? So think about like 4,000 square feet. That could be one single family home or a court could be 4,000 square foot homes or could be 8.

[39:07] 500 square foot homes. They would all be assessed the same amount of cash and So. At the highest level. Where we probably will set the cash and loo for all as we've said between 40 and $50 per square foot. That's a quite a large amount for a single family home to pay. So we've always had, and that's what number 9 is about. We've always had sort of, We've always had a way to mitigate the amount of cash and loo for single family homes. It'll still be quite high, but you know, if we left it the, if we, if we didn't do this stepping down. You know, you could see a single family home being required to peg. Quarter 1 million dollars. It's just sort of a distortion. And in the numbers. And so probably it'll be somewhere around 8 to 10,000 square feet where the cash in will be at one amount.

[40:09] And then at about 8 to 10,000 square feet, something in that range, we're still kind of figuring it out with the help of the consultant. The the cash and lieu. Then is scaled down so that you have a reasonable amount for a reasonably sized single family home. So this is the way that this is kind of done with this methodology. And KMA has been working with me on how we're going to apply this in Boulder. And. Does that answer the question? I don't know that I. Have more. Yeah, it does. Answer the question and I will. Raise it again in discussion. But yeah, that answers the question. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Can I just jump in maybe Curt, just to provide a little bit more context. So I think you're asking.

[41:00] A little bit more around the threshold behind. How it's going to be structured so the idea is that the typical home You know, as Michelle said, 800 1,200 square feet. They would pay roughly the same amount of cash. That they need now. Slightly smaller homes would pay less and anything larger. Would certainly pay more. So that's really the approach that we're taking. It is Michelle described, you know, has to be some sort of a belt. And that's what we're trying to figure out. Is that does that help? Okay, perfect. Yeah, I might have a different perspective on it, but yes. Thanks. Hey Michelle, please go ahead. Okay, go ahead, Moving on. Oh, sorry. Relationship affordable units to the market units. So this. Right now, so the whole scheme of IH is basically we get a subset of whatever a developer is developing.

[42:06] Whatever the market is developing, we get a subset of that. We don't drive what they are. Doing we just get a percentage of what they're doing. And so we get a proportional percent by unit types. So if they're doing half of the their units as duplexes and half of them as condos, the affordables will be half duplexes and half condos. So If they're doing some single family homes, then the affordable would need to be single family homes, but. There is a desire in the city not to continue to produce single family homes or encouraged single family homes. And so what we're going to do is say only for that type for single family homes. You don't have to do like for like. You could do single-family homes, but you could also provide. Townhomes and this would give a second option if you're doing single family homes.

[43:05] Mark and then myself. Hey, I'm suddenly very interested in this is what you're saying. That That we Is this for on site or is this for? Off site for caching, and Lou and Contrib. I'm referring to item 11. Okay. Yeah, so if they're providing units which could be on or off site not cash and loo cash and lose different they have to do like for like. Typically. So if they've got a bunch of rental apartments. Then they put the affordable units on site, they will be rental apartments. And if they're doing some town homes and they put them off site then the offsite project needs to provide townhomes or at least equivalent what we call equivalent community benefit.

[44:01] So. You know, we don't typically see developments of single family homes in Boulder. So that's one thing to keep in mind. This is Pretty rare. Very, very, very rare. But we but but if somebody were to say put 6 single family homes in a project with maybe 20 town homes. They could do all townhomes instead of the one of the single family homes being affordable. This wedding. Okay. But just like we. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Just like the revised ordnance proposes that we change to a per square foot cash in blue and that affords us. That that affords the developer, some fairer things and encourage to encourage this type of goodness we want. And it gives us flexibility. Is this this requirement of white for light and type of units? Versus if we said.

[45:10] Hey, we want you to do. X number of square feet. To meet your on-site requirements. That. Would that afford us greater flexibility if we were to efficient in a particular market type. Wow. So developers developing efficiency living units and we see a great shortage and 2 bedroom units. Does this prohibit us from saying, hey, what we really want you to do is to do. 5, 2 bedroom units instead of. 12. But use the same square footage. It was like. Okay. Yeah, you know the rationale behind inclusionary housing is that the market is producing what the community needs.

[46:07] They're doing a market studies and they are out there doing the type of housing that community needs. And IH is simply a subset of what they produce. Okay. And We don't. Change what they're gonna produce. The only time mark that that has happened there have been a couple projects where they were very family oriented projects. And they had a lot of 2 bedroom units and I said, would you consider putting in 2, 3 bedroom units instead of, you know, trading off because, because, you know. So a slight modification there, like the project I'm thinking of had like 70 units in it. Yeah. And I asked for like 2 more 3 bedrooms and they were happy to do that and they did do that but typically IH does not dictate the type of unit to be provided. Hmm. It would be difficult because they, they decide to put the make the units affordable during site review.

[47:07] And they already have their plans. They've got their floor plans and their unit scheme and all of that. And if we were to go in and say, Well, we want, certain amount of square footage that they are back to the drawing board and that can be very expensive for them. Okay. So I'm not sure how that how well that would work. For them that would probably drive them more and more to cash and loop. Okay. Yeah. Great. That's a good answer. Thank you. Laura. Thank you. Following up on that line of questioning, if we were going to do this and say you can do townhomes instead of single-family homes. How do we ensure some kind of equivalent, right? Like if it's 3,000 square foot single family homes that they're developing and the townhomes are 1,000 square foot that's obviously not an equivalent product. So. Is there any? So this is all in the regs, but there are size requirements for the units and they would apply in this case.

[48:01] So, and I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me, but we have a maximum. And I think for a middle income price for sale unit, I think the maximum size of 1,600 square feet, no matter what. The average size of the single family home or the townhomes are. Or even the condos if they're priced at middle income. So we typically most types of units. From 2 bedroom up to 4 bedroom. The the size is 80% of the average market size up to a maximum and the maximum is 400. For low MoD unit, 1,600 for middle income units. So there's sort of this range that has been in the program since day one and it's just the the idea. It's not get really large. Kind of luxury homes that this is. The idea through the program is to get. Reasonably sized affordable homes. For the community.

[49:04] Okay, so did. Yeah. Piggy back on that. I would say they have to provide the same number of bedrooms. So it might be a smaller unit, but it would still be a 3 bedroom town home versus a 3 bedroom, single family. Okay, so it sounds like that's kind of baked into the program that oftentimes these one for one units are smaller than the market rate units. They're always allowed to be smaller except for very small units. And again, I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me, but it's basically something like. For a very small units. It's like equal in size or 600 square feet, whichever is. Larger, I believe. Thank you. Okay. So I have a statistics question. What percentage of, permanently affordable developments are done? Off site by anyone. Other than bolder housing partners.

[50:02] Yeah, so yeah, and count those out. They're not really subject to IH the way. I know that's why I'm trying to understand. We've got this very complex set of regulations that I'm suddenly thinking like. Right. Right. How many developments does this actually impact? I think there's been 5 in the 23 years of the program. Not many. That's very difficult to do them off site. Yeah. You know, there was sort of some experimenting with that for, a while. And I haven't seen it for many, many years. Okay, so that's helpful to put this in some context. Let me follow up with a couple of questions that bounce off of Laura's question and Mark's question. So. You just said that you have a one to one requirement on bedrooms. And yet number 12 is your removing the requirement that middle income affordable units have at least one bedroom. So I'm curious, and perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying to Laura before. But it sounded to me like an internal contradiction.

[51:06] Right, so, it is one to one for bedrooms. So if a project has all one bedroom units, all of the affordable units have to be one bedroom. But if a project has nothing but studios or even say half studios, then half of the affordables can be studios. In other words, 0 bedroom. So to say that a middle income affordable unit has to have at least one bedroom. It actually is a contradiction in the code because of this proportional requirement. If they are producing studios, we will take studios as the affordable units. And so we're just taking out that. Contradiction in the code. Does that make sense? I guess are there often. Well. I guess I mean I have a question that has to do with the ELU issue.

[52:02] Because what I reading of it and again. Absolutely possible that I'm reading it correctly is that. You're, I'm not sure it's creating, but it would allow 400% ELU. Okay. Is that correct? In general that that I'm sorry Sloan Maybe you coming to answer the question. Yeah, so I think you're referring to the recent code changes, that Carl was working on. And so as part of that project, there was a proposal to remove the use review. For a hundred percent ELU project. So, those projects can occur now. They just go through a use review. And then as part of that, either under the proposed or current. They could provide. The i. And yes, 25%.

[53:04] That project could be affordable, eel used. Yeah, I guess the I guess the I guess a concern I have and I don't know if I'm asked if. How to exactly ask this as a question, cause it's a question really. Is that ELUs are the comments is EL user actually the best return on investment for developed developers. But they don't necessarily meet the needs of the housing needs of a pretty broad range of our community. I meet some housing needs but not. Anyone with family. With that with children. So I'm just sort of curious, I'm trying to understand the what what are you trying to incentivize? With number 12. Okay. We're not trying to incentivize anything. Right now, so If you back up a couple of slides, don't don't do that slow, but you'll remember. We said that all all 4 sale units provided on site, which again is not going to be very many so will be priced at middle income and yet we have this ones.

[54:07] The line in the code that says all middle income, formal units have to have one bedroom. So that creates a problem. Right. If a for sale project of ELUs comes in, you know, user typically rentals. Oh, you know, they're the ones I've seen have been rentals, but it is possible for EL used to be for sale. I suppose. Then we have a problem because the code says they all have to have one bedroom. So we're just sort of cleaning up this. We're not trying to incentivize anything. I see. Okay, I understand. I understand. We're just trying to stick with that proportional requirement, and this kind of. Is in conflict with it. Yeah. Okay, I appreciate I appreciate that clarification. I appreciate it. Okay. Any other questions before Michelle moves on? Okay, and Lisa, we got your text that you are, having internet trouble.

[55:03] If you have questions, feel free to text them to me and I'll ask them. So, rebuilt dwelling units. It says basically that IH doesn't reply to units that are removed due to an active nature or calamity, but there's no time limit on that. So something in in theory, I've never seen it, but somebody could make the case. Well, this was knocked down by, you know, a tornado a hundred years ago. So IH doesn't apply to me on my empty lot. So we're just trying to, again, this, this is clean up we're in right now. We just want to make sure that somebody isn't claiming an exemption from IH for something that happened long long time ago. If somebody, if there's a fire yesterday. And they rebuild IH, it does not apply, they can rebuild. And that has certainly happened. But it it makes sense to put a time limit on it because otherwise it's just open ended.

[56:00] So, and then we just we had an issue earlier this year where it was unclear who was gonna make the determination whether a demolished home is safe and habitable. Because if a home that is demolished is not safe and happen, have if it's safe and habitable. In other words, that's a house that somebody's living in. And they and it's demolished, they get an exemption from IH, our age can be waved if they rebuild in 3 years. That's the that's what we have in the code right now. And if we do the Nexus study, that piece of the whole piece of the code would change. But it's what we have right now. So we're just cleaning that up for the time being while we still have to live with this. But if a demolished home is not safe and habitable, in other words, it's an old shed with no floor in it, they do not get to wave IH. It's considered a new, new construction. So again, this is just clean up. Just making the determination and, of who it would be the chief building official will make the determination whether the the demolished home is safe and habitable.

[57:07] And then conversion of rental ownership. Dwelling units. So this had to do with that requirement that if you didn't put your, for sale units on site, you had to pay more cash and And so. This was basically a requirement that if you came in with a rental project. But then you converted it to home ownership within 5 years. You, you, kind of. It was basically a workaround for that additional cash and l if it was a home ownership from day one. And now we won't have that in the code, so we don't need this either. Sorry. I know that's a little complicated, but. Basically it's clean up. You're basically by changing the way cached and loo is calculated. It removes a bunch of. Items. We're in the in regulation and this is one of them.

[58:05] Yeah, it just makes it creates conflicts in the code, but both the way we're doing cash and loo and removing that requirement for half of the. To be for sale units to be prided on site. That's what this was about. Okay. So it won't be in there, so this would not make any sense in the code anymore. Yeah. Okay, So what we're doing looking at the cash and loo that whole ratcheting down for very small amounts of square footage. We want to result in roughly equal cash and loo revenues except where units are bigger. So obviously we would like to see more cash a little out of that particular. Change in the approach. Cash and Luke can be leveraged provide 2 to 3 rental units off site.

[59:00] That's why council is particularly interested in making sure that cash and Lou is. Easy to apply and a good, a good option for developers. Making sure that the cash and loo is viable. That's what this slide slide is about. It's a great option for the city because we do get more units, elsewhere. And so council has decided that that's an outcome that they are comfortable with. We so essentially that money will go into something through to a project like a BHP project. Where there's we're meeting a wide range of needs. Senior housing or transitional housing or just regular affordable housing for working folks. We also actually can distribute the housing, better. Through the cash and loo mechanism because we're not tied to where new development is happening right now. So, an entity like BHP can go out and find a site. And we end up with a better distribution citywide.

[60:10] I'm sorry, can I just ask a question a quick question? If the money goes to BHP, when the money goes to BHP. Do they do the. Housing type. Our dwelling type come along with that money. No, it's completely severed. It goes into the affordable housing fund that money the cash and It's generally mixed with other types of funding. Such as state and federal funds like Lytex and state like text and things like that. Home funds. Those, types of funds have certain requirements. So, but yeah, it's just it becomes it's own project, which you guys often see. And make a determination whether that housing that BHP is constructing is what is right for the city. So let me just follow up with another. Question that has to do so. And does BHP.

[61:06] Build permanently affordable middle. Build for that middle income slice or only for below 6 60% below. . HP builds affordable rental housing so at 60% and below Yeah. It's rental at 60% below. Alright, then. They're not they're not building for sale, middle income housing. And there is no, you know, one of the challenges with that type of housing is that there aren't type fund like all the funds I just mentioned, none of those can be used for 4 sale, like all the funds I just mentioned, none of those can be used for for sale mail-income housing. So it's one So what remains? In our code or in our regulation. That incentivizes middle income affordable. For sale housing.

[62:00] What remains? Well, it's it's certainly still an option that a developer could choose. And, we are allowing all of those, Home ownership for sale housing if they put it on site then they will be able to price it at middle income pricing so that is an incentive. Okay. But I, we wouldn't expect to see a lot of for sale, middle income housing through the IH program directly. But there we, we, can use that cash and lieu to buy existing units indeed restrict them to be for sale, middle income units and we're kind of you know dipping our toe into that world to see how that works and whether that makes sense. Whether that's a good investment of money, but we bought some homes. With the cash and loo so it we the city is doing that not BHP. Okay, that's great. That's really great to hear and hopefully that'll be something that the city finds is an effective.

[63:00] Way to grow the pool. Go ahead. Yes. Just a little bit. To that Sarah because that was your question that you wrote to us this morning. So there is. The scanner site acquisition, we've been purchasing a handful of middle or basically homes on the market. Every year and we basically turn them around and deed restrict them and resell them. To people eligible on the program that's really been our most effective tool. But it's slow and it's actually quite time consuming and expensive. So that's been the biggest challenge. But we also remember we just adopted the null and come down payment assistance pilot. We have our existing home to ownership, shared appreciation loan program. So, and annex stations. So we really turned annexations. So we really turned annexation as a big tool. Sound to be able to deliver on those ownership opportunities. But it's the biggest, most difficult nut for us to crack.

[64:01] And we've talked about this, I think, hopefully many times and you guys have heard this. We're always exploring new options and we're definitely open to new ideas because it is so challenging. Great. I appreciate that, Jay. Kurt and then Mark. Yeah, thanks. Following up on this question about the middle income. I think that I read someplace in the memo that LIKE actually allows income averaging, right? So not everybody needs to be at 60%. You can have some at 40% and some at 80%. For example, is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Okay, so. So a VHP project could. Do that, for example, to even provide some small number of units at 100 or 120%. So keep in mind, BHV does rentals. So when we're talking about missing middle, we're really focused on ownership opportunities.

[65:00] And DHP has been very clear from, from their board that they. Their their wheelhouse is providing for rentals. For a low and modern income households. It's not ownership. We've been trying to persuade them in that direction. But we haven't been effective. Right. Okay, good point. Yeah, thank you. Mark. Oh, I'm gonna make a comment and you can write if you want or you want I have this sense of whiplash based on what I thought. I have this sense of whiplash based on what I thought was a sense of whiplash, based on what I thought was a council. Well, let me ask this question. Did council wait back in there, agenda setting and retreat. Give you the task of producing. Changes in the code that would create more for sale.

[66:04] Through the IH program. Yes, that was what we were tasked with. And it turns out that in order to do that. As you know, as we presented last time, what really would need to happen would be that the, site requirement for those 4 sound middle income units would need to be roughly. Right. Would need to be feasible. Right and the cash and Lewis set at the top of the feasibility level so you can't raise cash and so you'd have to lower so right now it cost about twice as much. To put the units on site as the cash and loop, but the cash and loo is as high as it really ought to go. So that's why we came out with a 15% requirement and council wasn't comfortable reducing the requirement. Right. And I would just add, Mark, you are absolutely correct. And I think council, you're even recognize that.

[67:01] Yeah. They were reversing course from their initial direction to staff. At the September seventh meeting. So. Your whiplash is Yeah, recognize that. So by us as well. Okay. I think they had hoped for a less painful solution and then you know, the solution really. You know, it's all a big balancing act and They weren't willing to. Comfortable going there. And I, Okay. Do you think? Okay. Oh, do you, do you wanna. I, well, I kind of wanted to follow up on, cause I too sense the. Whiplash and I'm curious if as you all to staff has thought about. The particular possible benefit of these. Changes that you're making absent the affordable for sale, middle income. Which and that possible benefit is some additional cash and loo money. Put that additional cash in lieu.

[68:03] Be directed towards. The middle income purchase program that Jay just described like is there a way to kind of bring us back a little bit into solving addressing the issue we were trying to, they were trying to address. And maybe earmark. Some portion of the funds to go into the cities. I'll call it a buy back program, although that's not an accurate description. Yeah, I think that's a good, turn for it though, a buy back program. Go ahead, Jane. Well, We just call it scatter site. Acquisition. I don't know if that's, if it doesn't roll off the time. But. Yeah. Okay. No, it doesn't. But that's okay. Could the additional funds or could some funds be earmarked for more scatter site? Additional. Theoretically, I mean, we try not to earmark because a lot of what we do is, is to be perfectly almost opportunistic.

[69:04] We see an opportunity we go after so does our, all of our housing partners. So we've tried to avoid saying Tax dollars will go to this. Rax dollars will go to that. But typically we have been setting aside every year. Close to a million dollars for the scavenger site acquisition and within, we're going after grant money, state grant money through proposition 1 2 1 2 3. Another state programs to try to bolster that program. Not just do it in bowling, but actually do it, county wide. With our partners. So, be purchasing. City of older staff would be working to purchase homes county wide and making those deed restricted. And making them available to middle income households. Okay, thank you. Giving me an idea, Mark, here next. So. Getting back to the little whiplash thing. So I'm personally happy to see then counsel this council has finally acknowledged the value of cash.

[70:03] And then I feel like this is an acknowledgement that prior councils sometimes have not made. And so, and I think part of. Our issue and I'll get to my question here in a second is that We have set a goal of on site units without. Without really clarifying what condition we're trying to create with on-site units. It is because, you know, unlike other cities, we don't have rough areas, bad neighborhoods, etc. And so this idea that, so I'm gonna ask this question. How does do you in the housing department?

[71:01] Have a really good understanding. The direction and goals we are trying to achieve. With onsite units rather than just on site units in and of themselves being involved. What conditions are we trying to achieve? Or we finally said, yeah, we kind of thought we wanted onsite units, but I guess we really don't. So, can you comment on that? Well, the whole program was designed around. The affordable housing being put on site. That's the way it was, it was originally conceived. 23 years ago, so long time ago. Cash and Lou was just a another option if they couldn't put the units on site. But because of the financial realities of of of construction and the cost of construction these days. You know, it's morphed into the way that program works now is that it mostly takes in cash and loo that cash and lose then put into projects elsewhere.

[72:04] So the program still produces a lot of units just not in the way that you think it will. Just not on site. And so again, that's what we presented to councils if you if if on site is important to you. And for some reason, Why should say for some reason so back in 2,000 when the program was adopted there was this idea that mixing income would really be beneficial to everybody. That is kind of fallen by the wayside, especially with the scale of projects that we have in Boulder. Like you have, neighborhoods where we have a affordable housing and market housing. They don't have to be in the same building. And that's sort of what the thinking has come around to sort of in general. Around these programs. So, you know, council decided that they would rather take the cash and move because it can be leveraged to produce more units and that's the outcome that they're looking at. Good morning.

[73:00] Does that answer your question, Mark? Okay. Yeah. Hmm. Well. Yeah, go ahead, Hmm. Can I also add a little bit? A little more flavor. So, I guess I would, I wouldn't think about it as onsite is the desired outcome. So the middle income strategy is really all about providing ownership opportunities. On site is, is an inclusionary housing. And while inclusionary housing, is what we call the workforce that affordable housing, right, generates a lot of revenue. The It's not the only source like I was talking describing earlier. So think about it as how do we get ownership opportunities. Yeah. Okay. And it's just super challenging. If you consider how many ownership projects are actually getting built in the city boulder. Hmm. And across the country. So again, I age reflects what's getting built in the community. And I. You know, we have the same frustration. Or not getting the ownership outcomes because we don't have the right tools. And. Right. Yeah, okay.

[74:02] Alright, do you foresee when you look in your crystal ball? And I've been reading about a coming glott. You know, here we have a housing crisis. And so what do we do? We build rentals and we're building. Rentals at a wild pace and I say we I'm talking about the US, Denver, except for. I don't know if anyone read some of the articles about the number of rental units in Denver coming online. 70,000. I mean, giant numbers. And that, you know, some are predicting a crash or a big downturn in the rental market. Do you foresee? A possible several years from now, a conversion of market rental units to ownership units. Should the rental market take the plans that some are predicted? Yeah, I would say that's definitely a possible. I mean, that's what happened when the switch from ownership to rental happened.

[75:05] A lot of originally slated ownership projects like Peloton converted to rental. So it's only logical that if the March market were to shift back. Okay. That you might say the same thing in reverse. Thank you. Okay. That's my crystal ball that, yeah, I wouldn't rely on that. Alright, hold on everyone. I was where did you all go? There you are. Okay. Michelle, you were not done with your, presentation, so. Yeah, just a couple more slides for us to take a look at the next steps is that we will go tomorrow to the housing advisory board and also give them the same update we're giving to you tonight about what council has directed us to do and you know going through in more detail about what council has directed us to do and you know going through in more detail of the code changes. And then on October, 19, that would be first reading of the ordinance language to city council and November second would be the public hearing and hopefully the adoption of the ordinance.

[76:03] And then from November to January, we will need time to update the administrative regs and all of our online materials and things like that. So the ordinance would not be proposed to go into effect for 90 days after adoption. And then next year, hopefully we would launch into a Nexus study for that idea of, having some affordable benefit from demolished. Homes and that the home center demolished and rebuilt. Go ahead. So this is the motion. We recommended the option. Hey, before we turn to, Lisa just showed up. Lisa, do you have some questions? No. George, do you have questions? You also showed up. Okay, Laura and then. That just turn on my camera. Okay, Laura then Kurt and if there no more questions after the 2 of them then we will go to a public comment.

[77:03] Thank you. I just have one question and I'm not trying to monkey wrench because I do think that I appreciate the council asked staff to look into this. They got the answer back from staff about what it would take to create more middle income ownership opportunities on site and what the trade-offs were. And decided that it wasn't worth it for the the trade off with the cash in lieu versus you know how much we would have to decrease the requirement for on-site. I think that's an entirely appropriate. To make given more information. But my question is, has any comparison been done or any information provided to any comparison been done or any information provided to City Council about you know, given that we still do want to create middle income home ownership opportunities through. Our our programs, our various programs that we discussed. You know, our alternatives are, you know, the down payment assistance program, the scatter site acquisition program.

[78:01] How do those costs compare? With what we were looking at with the on-site middle income incentives. Does that question make sense? And I, I imagine the answer is that compared hasn't been done yet. Or maybe we don't need to do it. I'm gonna stop talking and let staff respond. Well, you can't get 2 to 3 units off site for for sale middle income units. It probably is more of a one to one, wouldn't you say, Jay? For the money that we, yeah. Yes. Yeah. So we did, yeah, that's Michelle's point. So, you know, You can only leverage that state and federal funding if it's a rental project using loan income housing tax credits. We don't have the same tools for ownership, right? Understood, but we are still going to put money into trying to create middle income home ownership opportunities. And so I guess my question is, do we have a good understanding of you know, what it costs to do that.

[79:02] You know, for example, the scatter site acquisition. And use that as the comparison rather than the ownership to rental because that's a different outcome and maybe council is is happy with saying we're not going to put as much into pursuing ownership but if we're still going to pursue ownership It feels like we should be comparing ownership to ownership and the costs of this program versus this alternative versus ownership versus rental. Does that make sense? It does. Yeah. And last year we did try to provide council. I think, that we had a diagram showing concentric circles of what it costs. For a typical city subsidy for an ownership unit versus rental unit. And it's pretty dramatic. I mean, I think council does understand. Oh, nip, there it is. So I just give you, and these are very rough numbers based on current, you know, this was I think, last summer. But it just gives you a sense of how expensive new ownership construction is that not half a million to 600,000.

[80:07] Whereas our typical subsidy poor. Owensel project right now is between 80 and 110,000. So I mean, so they, I think they understand. The delta that we're dealing with. But again, the goal. Over a whole affordable. Of affordable housing program. Is the reminded diversity of housing types. So we'll still pursue ownership because that is a goal. But I think what council directed us was, you know, we still think the focus should be on low in moderate income branches because that's where we see the real need. Okay. Okay, gotcha. I'll just follow up by saying this, this is really helpful to have these numbers. This ownership acquisition number of a hundred to $110,000. How does that compare with what the developer has to put in to create a unit on site.

[81:03] Is that this 500 to $600,000 number? Let's the 500 is 600,000. Yes. Okay, so the ownership acquisition, we still get more bang for the buck for the same money that would go into the cash and loo program and could be used for this ownership acquisition. Okay, that's the comparison I was looking for. Thank you. Now I understand. And those numbers, I would add 50% to the owner ownership. Because they've gone up dramatically. Just with the in the past year. Thank you. What do you mean by that? Well, since we started doing this program over a year ago, our average subsidy for a home that we're purchasing on the market was under to 110 and now we're finding it's it's closer to 150. 160. Is that because of the? Market rates. It has just more to do with the escalating housing costs in Boulder. And also the cost to, Some of them have required, you know, just trying to find somebody to actually do the work.

[82:10] Has been challenging so everything she's got. It's gotten more expensive. And if anyone has else has questions before we go to public comment, please raise your I'm sorry, just on that, Jay. So you're saying, like, to back, position, cause, 50%. What is the new rental construction gone up by? Because can't be flat. Yeah, I assume that's gone up as well, but I can't give you a good number on that. I can only tell you from experience in the past year on the acquisition. Yeah. I was gonna say, Kurt, I think. Yeah, I got it. I just, it's. It'd be helpful. We're talking about the same proportion. Well, this is the city subsidy. So if rental, the subsidy, the amount of money required to produce a rental unit has gone up that is often absorbed through the live hex.

[83:03] I'm not through an increase in city sensitive. George, did you want to follow up with another question? It's just, we're having a lot of information here with just rough numbers. So I don't know that there's any worth going for. Okay. Thanks. I have 2 questions related to annexation, which is. Something that I brought up in a recent annexation that we were considering. First of all, with the change to per square foot caching But then annexation, you don't know. How big a thing is going to be built, right? But we require the the affordable housing payment at time of annexation.

[84:02] So how will that work? So, yeah, that's a good question. Annexations are really different than I. They're not IH, the IH. Rules don't apply. And so an annexations are negotiated and so for anything over about 5 units, we, we do not allow cash in. We require affordable housing to come in through the annexation. It's a very powerful tool that the city has. And then that, for, it's only for very small projects like left. Say they have, they have, they can annex with the house, but they have the ability to add one more house. Usually we'll say it's 2 times the cash and loo when that house is added, not at the time of annexation, but what at the time of construction. Then they will be assessed 2 times. We only use the cash and loo as a number, but it's not IH. It's just, to, nail down a number for the amount that that house will have to pay when it's built.

[85:03] Okay, so I was wrong. But for anything of any size, we're gonna require affordable units, no option for cash and Right. Okay. So I think I was mistaken because I thought that they paid the cash, when the annexation have, but that's not true. No. Right, and so then you know what the size is. Yeah. They, when they deal. And so at that time you know. Yeah, okay. And then a related question is, there's sort of this. Rule of thumb of a Twix multiplier. That's just sort of. Tradition? Is that right? It's not. You know where that came from? Everything has an origin story, right? So the iH requirement being 25%. And, our, rule of thumb in annexations formerly, I'm not sure that we'll see this going forward because it's high, was to require 50% in an annexation, IE.

[86:03] Double. And so that's how we got double cash and loo. But I'm, I don't know that we're going to be able to see 50% in annexations in the future. So. You know, but that's where that number came from. That's how we ended up with. Double cash and loop. Double the onsite requirement or double cash and loo. Okay, thank you. I have one other question which relates to sort of some of the details of the, Hmm. Yeah. Selling or write pronunciation to report. So it's a question about feasibility. As I understand it, they define feasible as meaning. The developer return is within 2%. Of the cost. But that cost includes. 10 to 12% developer profit. Is that accurate? Okay, and then marginally feasible.

[87:13] Means that it's within. 2 to 7%. Of the cost. And so that means the developer profit marginally feasible. Would mean the developer profit basically would. Go down, right? Correct. If we're in that 2 to 7%. So the developer profit would be more like. 5 to 3 to 5%. And my question is. Is a developer given risk and stuff. Is a developer gonna develop if they're expected? Prophet is 3 to 5%. I'm just, I'm, I'm, I'm trying to understand what the, the analysis that they.

[88:02] Made but also to understand. If, if marginally feasible means. That some of those projects are gonna happen or if it really means none of those projects are gonna happen. Yeah, it means that they're basically on the on the edge of not happening. Feasible means that all the investors, you know, so it's not just the developer, it's all of his finance people and you know there's a lot of people involved in a development and it's a business and they have to make money or else why would they do it? So, you know, there's a margin, a feasibility margin that is very comfortable for them to say, yes, we, you know. Because there's a lot of things that could change the cost could change over time and so they have to make sure that they're in a in a range of feasibility where they can absorb any problems with the project, for example. So they have a comfort level with a certain return on investment and as that goes down they get less and less comfortable.

[89:06] Going forward with the project because there it's more risk, a lot more risk for them. So yes, when you get to the into the marginally feasible, that's when they're really wondering if they should move forward with the project. If they can, you know, if they even can do it. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay, I think that answer my question. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. So we're gonna see if there are, Let's see, first of all, staff, thank you very much. Vivian can you if anyone has plans to speak in the public we're gonna go to public participation now please raise your electronic hands and then Vivian will call on you. Yeah, great. So each member of the public has 3 min to provide their comments and we have make and calls. So Devon will show the timer. Please go ahead. Makin.

[90:09] Good evening, planning board. I'm went through this, the hearing that council had on September seventh. And, I generally strongly support the staff recommendation. The reason I wanted to come tonight is to push back against the city council conclusion though. The middle income housing. We should give up on that and essentially they did that and their September seventh meeting because They it's more expensive to develop middle income housing than it is permanently affordable housing That is counterintuitive to a lot of people because you think of middle income housing doesn't have to be as inexpensive as affordable housing. So the subsidy is less. 3 members of council were very disappointed like the error was let out of their tires when the majority said well If it's true that the same amount of money will get us 25 to 30 permanently affordable units, but only 15.

[91:21] Permanently affordable middle income units then let's just concentrate on the affordable units. And there's a time between now and the passage of the final ordinance at the first meeting in November. When planning board housing advisory board and members of the public might. Push back on this. But as you can see people, since I'm the only one speaking tonight. This is a this is difficult stuff that is really left to you folks in in whom the city has has invested It's confidence that you can.

[92:01] See the whole picture and make the right decisions. But, after I've spoken, Michelle can correct any error that I'm. I'm stating, but. Our affordable housing program, which provides housing for people 60% in AMI and below. It's always given me the comfort that, oh gosh, we're meeting a lot of the needs of low and lower middle income people. But really the people that are served by permanently affordable housing are in a narrow band. The overwhelming number of them are between 40 and 60%. The people who work at the library. A city staff. First responders and nurses and teachers They don't qualify for our permanently affordable housing program. They make a little bit too much money to do that. And we're abandoning them. The middle income housing strategy called for 3,500 units to be created by 2,030 and we have created only a handful in the last 7 years.

[93:10] So I just in your discussion, please think about whether you want to push back on what councils is and kind of throwing middle income housing over the trance. Thank you, Megan. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else, Vivian? No, no other hands. That's it. Okay. Folks, do you want to take a 5 min break and then we'll come back and have our discourse drive a thumbs up on that thumbs up. Okay, we will be back at 7. 37.

[98:02] If you can hear my voice, please come back to your computers. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I'm gonna try a little experiment tonight. See if we can combine a lot of good ideas. About how to process. Out of our process and see if we can do this. What I'd like to suggest is that We go around the horn once. And each person when they're called on raise whatever. Topics or ideas they may have for either. Amendments or stand alone. Or if they just are going to support them. Suggested motion language. So that we can see if there's some areas of discussion that are. Common to more than one of us and we can begin to flesh some stuff out before and If we know that there's the suggested motion language is.

[99:10] Find by most people as a standalone, but there are other motion language ideas that are out there. We can. Go through that process. Lisa. Oh, you didn't need to do. No, I just wanna talk. That's all. Okay, okay, so Lisa is going to be the first around the horn. Lisa, take it away. I was like, no, I just. Yeah, I really appreciate what staff did here. I think given the direction. Council gave you. And the inherent challenges to this, I think you came up with overall some really good and exciting. Ideas and if not solutions I think definitely improvements. I mean I think this is just such a thorny problem. I'm gonna take a little time instead of kind of digging into that too much to say that as other members of planning board and our sole speaker.

[100:05] Tonight's said and I don't think this is. Would necessarily within staffs per view your responsibility because you take your direction from our elected officials. I'm just so disappointed that middle income housing didn't make it in here. I think that there is a real need for. Permanently affordable, you know, lower income on some housing and I also think that we actually do a pretty good job of providing that and. We're losing families. I mean, if you look at BVSDs numbers right now, we're looking at closing a lot of elementary schools and soon. You know, I've talked about this often, but like a lot of my friends who grew up here are gone. I mean, they're out. And it's staff knows this better than anyone else. So I'm not lecturing to you. I guess I'm lecturing council. And to the extent that this makes it into the minute. Or that I go speak at council but You know, it used to be the lot of of our city staff lived in the city of Boulder and every year it's fewer and fewer and fewer and then we complained about people commuting in.

[101:04] I don't know what we expect. So, Anyway, I don't want that to in any way reflect negatively on staff's hard work here. I think you've done a lot of a lot of creative and smart thinking and we'll probably have some. Feedback other members of the board will but I just, I hope that makes it into minutes and the record show, especially if other members of the board agree with me that it's just very very disappointing that the same that a middle got cut and I think it's a real. Lost opportunity. And I hope we find other ways to address that. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. I'll just go around the horn, Curt. Thanks. Yeah, I struggle with this question of the middle income housing because we certainly want more. Residents to be able to live here that's been a long time concern of mine. On the other hand, you know, there is the significant trade-off in terms of the significant trade off in terms of the absolute number of low income, lower income units that we can provide.

[102:11] So, I'm not seeing a good answer to this, I guess. And based on information from the memo, it sounded like. There are units that are available, at around the 80%, that are market rate to market rate to market rate to market rate to market rate to market rate to market rate to market rate affordable that are market rate to market rate affordable at roughly the 80%. AMI rate. And so to me, it seems like it's Mostly, in the 60 to 80% where we're missing out because and if you're at 61% then you can. You can't, you don't qualify for some 60% unit, right? So I think that's part of what Mark was also talking about, that it's definitely a concern and I know.

[103:02] I don't have a good solution for it. But I certainly share the qualms that have been expressed. Do other things that I would like to raise and one of these relates to question that I asked. I have real concerns about giving a discount basically to people who are building large single family houses. The Michelle mentioned the hypothetical of a 4,000 square foot house. So 4,000 square foot has is going to cost. 2 to 2.5,000,002 to 3 million dollars I guess to actually construct and so If we're worried about impoverishing the owner of that because we're requiring a $250,000 cash and loop payment. I think that that's misguided. I think that people building those kinds of houses absolutely can afford. at the full. Great and we should not be giving them a discount.

[104:07] So that's one thing that I would like to. Getting here the other thing and I raised this in my email and I'm less I guess passionate about this but this there's this provision 9 13 9 which as I understand it allows someone to build a house and then there's this provision 9 13 9 which as I understand it allows someone to build a house and then defer cache and loo on it and First of all, it sounds like it's never been used and so. It's maybe just kind of cluttering up code. It also seems like potentially you could own it as an LLC and then just keep transferring ownership of the LLC and Basically never have to pay cash and so My inclination would be to delete that section of the code.

[105:01] And just eliminate possibility. So those are my. 2 additional potential amendments. Before staff responds to. Your, to your, you keep moving on my screen, sorry. Curt, I use. Would your expectation be that you're gonna propose these as amendments to the main motion or that you might? Do the as standalones. I think they'd probably be most Okay. Okay. Laura and then George and then Mark. Thank you. So. To try to be succinct. Thank you to staff for all of your work on this and for the excellent presentation. I think I've seen the presentation 3 or 4 times now. Either at planning board or at HAB or at City Council.

[106:02] And I feel I have a fairly good grasp of it. So I, I do support, I think the language as proposed. Of course willing to consider the amendments of my fellow planning board members. Regarding the comments about the abandoning the missing middle. I really don't I don't see that that's what's happening here. I think that this is a recognition that this particular tool of trying to encourage developers to build housing on-site ownership opportunities on site. Isn't working for a variety of reasons and as I understand it from listening to staff We were never likely to get a lot of homeownership, middle income units out of this no matter what change is made. It, you know, we're just not building. Ownership units in the first place. And so, you know, given that this is the inclusionary housing units are a reflection of what's being built. If they're building rentals, we get rentals. It's only if they a choose to build ownership units that we would even have the opportunity to build to get ownership units into the inclusionary housing program.

[107:06] And the developer still has to have the option of cash and loo. We cannot require them to do the on-site affordable units in their development. And so even by trying to incentive incentivize this with staff's original proposal, we were never likely to get very many of them. So I think I'm not, I don't think that this is a Going to shift the needle one way or the other, you know, and I agree with Lisa that we really need to look at other ways to try to get those middle income home ownership opportunities. And I think we're gonna get more bang for our buck if we just let the developers give us cash and loo and then we work on how do we develop, you know, how does the city act as the developer, how do we work with BHP, how do we work with housing per humanity or a habitat for humanity. I'm very excited by some of the other things that we could be doing like. If the zoning for affordable housing passes and we are able to do more duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods. Does that offer us some opportunities to do some of that scatter site acquisition, turn them into affordable duplexes and triplexes for example or you know Matt Applebaum and his wife Johnny donated their house to the city.

[108:10] Can we do more and figure out ways to incentivize people to donate housing that can then go into the inclusionary housing program. Can we work with Habitat for Humanity to fix these things? Up at a cheaper price and all kinds of things that we could think about that I think are going to give us more bang for a buck than worrying about. This provision in this ordinance about how we incentivize developers to do it on-site ownership when they're not building ownership anyway. So I'm comfortable. I don't feel like that's where my energy is is trying to push back on this particular provision in this particular ordinance, but I definitely have energy to finding other solutions for the missing middle problem. Okay, I'm Michelle. You have your hand up. I think you want to respond to Kurt. Yeah, I just wanted to. Maybe clarify, Kurt, what you were talking about. I think we're on the same page. We are proposing to eliminate the cash and loop deferral.

[109:01] That's what's being proposed. Is that what you? Wanted. No, I was referring to Section 9, 13 9. Good. Which I believe is still in. The modified the amended code the proposed amendments You've taken out a bunch of stuff, but my understanding is it's still in there. Maybe I'm miss reading. So there's 2 options in that code section. The first is to if it's a single family home, you can de restrict your single family home. They continue to live there without income qualifying. The second option is the deferral, which we're getting rid of. Right, and it was the first one, the deed restricting. Your home option that I'm concerned about. I mean, if people actually want to do that, that's great. But I'm concerned that it could be misused.

[110:01] To effectively permanently defer providing any kind of cash and, or any kind of providing any kind of affordable housing. It's owned as an LC. And you just keep transferring Basically, it never, it would never get, it would never turn into a horrible housing and the city would never get the cash more. And. Well, I think we can prevent that in the way we implement, that piece of the ordinance. It's only the first owner that does not need to income qualify, whether that's a, an individual or an LLC. If the home is transferred. The the deed restriction goes with it and any new people that live there have to income qualify. So it becomes. currently affordable home like anything else in the program. Right, and my concern was if the home is not transferred to a different owner, but ownership of the LC changes.

[111:08] It's a detail. We probably shouldn't spend too much time on it. It's just a concern. Well, I would say it's something that actually it's. If you think about it, people sell businesses all the time and if the asset of the business happens to be a piece of real estate and let's say you have to cash transaction. There is no lender. And so the D transfers with the LOC ownership like I get where you're going with this code. I'm anyway I'm not trying to answer this for staff. I just, I understand your concern. And I don't think it's. Small. Do you want to talk about it now or do you want to get through all the? Now let's finish going around the horn and then come back. I think I said George was going to be next. Yeah, I'll keep mine really quick. I kind of agree wholeheartedly with what Lisa said at the at the front.

[112:03] I also see Kirk point on this LLC thing too, so it's worth at least teasing it out. As far as trying to tap on. Like a to what Kurt said, it, on like a $50 cash and loop per square foot. A newly developed home. I don't know that that would actually. Create the outcome that we would be looking for because I could see I could see that inflating values of existing housing stock too. Just by, creating an additional $200,000 barrier. For single families so really need to consider sort of what the unintended consequences something like might be. But anyways, those are my comments. Thanks, George. Mark. Yeah, I'm. This just makes me kind of sad because I don't have any great ideas here.

[113:02] We have an excellent staff that's done excellent work working with a very good staff that's done excellent work working with a very good consultant and has done what they're working with a very good consultant and has done what they can and you know. Working with a very good consultant and has done what they can and you know a majority on council saw things differently and and so so I'm I'm sad that we don't have a way to advance with this ordinance change our middle income ownership goals. At the same time, you know, by a a great proponent. Of the results of our cash and loop program and I think that all the ordinance clean up and and modifications. Are are great. So I guess I concur with Laura in the idea that you know, let's carry on and and and figure out be creative and in a different ordnance in a different node change figure out.

[114:04] Something beyond our current. Middle income down in an assistance program, which That's also doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere. But anyway, I overall on this board of the ordinance. And any possible modifications that we might come up with to. Avoid this. Okay, thank you. And my comments are, I completely agree with Lisa. And I'm gonna propose a separate motion so that it doesn't get tangled up in the The main motion recommend to city council that explored that it explored the diversion of more cash and new funds for the purpose of additional scatter site acquisition in the city. That if that's a program that except in time, you know, this current moment costs approximately what the subsidies for rental development cost for the city. Then it seems to me like that's a useful. But, that would be a good investment of some of the cash and leaf funds.

[115:08] And since. Since it's a program that we already know we have and we know how it works and we have this cash and lose money. It's just a question. Again, it's a recommendation. So I'm going to make that recommendation after we vote on the main motion and the amendments and amendments. And, to. Support. I share, I will say to Kurt to idea 2 motion ideas. I, I both understand the impulse to not. Give big hump those big houses a new big houses. Some sort of special deal. Special deal. But I share George's concern and he's the Go to guy on housing, economic real estate economics.

[116:00] Of the 7 of us that it has some unintended consequences that have to do with increasing even more. The cost of half of single family homes for sale in Boulder, especially since I just heard Michelle say that it's no longer the pot, it's not the policy of the city of Boulder that we don't want more single family homes, which I think I didn't realize that was our policy. And I think that we've just, if that is the road we're on, we've just made it. Made all the single family homes that remain in Boulder. Even more expensive. Which will exacerbate the problem that Lisa. Has pointed to and that we all see with all of our friends who have children. Or grandchildren as the case may be. In terms of the, income qualified, you know, putting deep restricting your house while you still live in it. I seems like a useful topic to bring up. But it also seems like something that would just definitely be.

[117:05] Encouraging staff. To explore and try to come up with. Ways to serve a to eliminate that possibility rather than striking it from the program because The fact is that if you deed restrict your home while you live in it. The city has just added a deed restricted for sale home and we need to add more deed restricted for sale home. So I don't think you want to discourage. That as a possibility. But you do want to discourage anyone who's trying to like. Game the system so If you're gonna suggest an amendment, I would suggest it be something around the lines of. Recommending that City Council direct staff to explore. That portion of your concerns. So, Jay. You're all done going around.

[118:01] Yes, we've gone around once. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to add a little bit more flavor to what, Kurt's concern about the LOC. So we have this challenge with our current affordable home ownership program. As well as rental compliance program. We do have tools. To basically enforce our covenants. So I understand the concern, but I would say that We are in pretty good position to enforce it. And Perhaps we could do it better, but I'm not sure it's going to be the big problem that you're, for seeing. So, how do folks feel if we go ahead and make the main motion and second it and then see if there's discussion or amendments that people want to make to it. Okay, would someone like to make the main motion? I'll just do it. Okay. The motion language planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance 8 6 0 one amending chapter 9 13 inclusionary housing section 9 dash to dash 14 site review and section 9 dash 16 dash one general definitions BRC, 1,981 modifying affordable housing requirements and incentives and setting forth related details.

[119:21] I will second. So I have a second. Okay, Laura seconds it. Discussion or I'm in this. Curt. Yeah, I would like to suggest an amendment. Or I would like, yeah, to move an, adding a provision that the Ketch and Loo rate not be reduced. Or single family houses. Can I suggest a friendly amendment to that? You can. Could what would it do? And I would like be very interested in the opinions of other board members on this.

[120:05] If we added to what you just moved, single family houses over a certain size threshold, right? I don't I don't know that we want to be penalizing someone who decides to rebuild a 2,500 square foot house. But if somebody wants to build 5,000 square feet or greater, then I'm less inclined. Like as you said, that's already a 2.5 million dollar home. I'm not really worried about the impact of that on the general housing market. Yeah, and if I can respond to that, certainly that is also my primary concern. The particularly large houses that I see going up around me that are just crazy expensive. Of course, with this proposed ordinance change, the, will. Be based on square footage, right? So inherently, the cash, would be higher for the larger houses. But sure, I would be fine also with some sort of a threshold.

[121:04] I'm curious what George thinks of that as Sarah pointed out. You're the person who understands these economics, the best of all of us. Then I haven't put too much thought against it, but I. I mean, some threshold may make sense. I, but I don't know what that would be. It just seems kind of nudely. On already, newly subject. So that would be my, professional opinion. Mark. Good could we recommend that? I'm sorry. Mark just has his hand up. Was responding, I believe, is something you said. So. If you don't mind, let's let Mark talk. Yeah, to both and all I was going to ask is the specific line words, section of the code. Where you would, would you be striking? A sentence or words. That provide and a discount for single family homes.

[122:03] Can can you tell me where where this is? And the Oh. My understanding is this is not in the ordinance. This is in the associated rules that the city manager. Good, Is that Michelle is that correct or Jay? Yeah, that's correct. So there's nothing really to point to. No. So this would just be guidance. Saying, don't. Don't discount it or, create. Create. And anyway, it would be up to still up to the city manager for having this. Yes. That's my I'm sorry. Sloan is this language that you're trying to capture what is being talked about or I just don't know what this language is.

[123:02] Yeah, this is so this is the New Orleans language. The new ordinance language not including Kurt's suggestion. No, so yeah, I just wanted to show that there's not really. Anything in here that points to how that would be scaled. So in essence, it's the implementation, your implementation process when you get to implementation. I mean, this will be determined when you get to implementation. Yeah. So that that that was just out. I didn't see anything in there. So, about single family home carve out or something. It's still all per square foot. Is that correct? So. Yes, but there's a sliding scale of between 40 and $50 a square foot depending on the type of unit and I think what staff had explained was that single-family homes would qualify for the smaller end of that scale, the $40 per square foot rather than the $50 per square foot.

[124:01] Am I misunderstanding that George is shaking his head no. Yeah, I don't think that's Yeah. Let's have a wait wait, how about we let Michelle answer the question? Since she actually knows. So one of one of the goals of transitioning to this different type of cash and loo calculation. Would be to not, we, it is not a goal to increase cash and loo from current levels because they are at the high end of feasibility. So we don't want to increase cash and lose significantly. Right now, all single family homes pay 52,000. Dollars in cash and loo because it's 1,200 square feet and above they all no matter what size there because nobody's building a 1,200 square foot single family home in Boulder. The average size is 3,500 square feet. So the intent is to keep the cash in lieu at 52,000 for a reasonably sized unit. Say a 1,500 square foot unit or 2,000 square foot unit. Again, we're sort of working this out right now.

[125:06] And then bring that cash and loo up. To the amount that we want to apply to all developments. And, and so it's a sliding scale down to 52,000. So that we're for at least some single family homes that are of a reasonable size. The cash and Lewis not increased. But because they all pay 52,000 now anything over that target size of let's say it's 2,000 square feet. They're gonna pay more than they pay now. So the goal that we want larger units to pay more will be met. But to bring that amount up to 4. 40 to $50 per square foot you know you kind of have to You have to. Do a sliding scale to where you get up to that number. So that would be the way it would work. And so you would have. Small up to a reasonable sized house would pay what they pay now.

[126:06] 52,000 or less because right now if it's less than 1,200 square feet they do pay less. And then things over that reasonable size. Again, I'm proposing something like 1,500 to 2,000 square feet. The cash only starts to go up. Until it hits that target. And, and again, I think that the the consultant recommends that be at about 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. You kind of ratchet it up. You hit your number and then everything. Bigger than that pays this set amount. So it's. It's It's a kind of a, it is the best practice. The other communities that do apply cash and lead by square foot do do this kind of sliding scale to get down to the smallest amount of square foot. So I hope that I hope that helps to clarify what's really going on. So. It's not like you're giving a big break to larger hum.

[127:07] They will play plenty of cash and loo. Like a 4 or 5,000 square foot home. Like a 4 or 5,000 square foot home, like a 4 or 5,000 square foot home. We'll probably pay $150,000 in cash and let's triple So, can I just, I'm gonna jump in here. I think Kurt, are you, you're there? Okay, you're moving. I thought maybe you would frozen. We don't have exact language from you, Kurt, but I'm, I am, I have to say that based on what Michelle just said, I would not support. Your amendment. I think I think staff is Is is is is trying to calculate. In meaningful way in ways that will produce a meaningful financial outcome for cash in lieu. And you know the desire to use cash and loo as a as a a way to prevent big houses may not be the right tool. So I'm just telling my vote would be a no.

[128:05] Sure. A quick addition if you don't mind. The way that we have it set up right now again, it's not set in stone. We're still, still like. Putting together how this implementation would work. When I looked at all of the single family homes that were built last year based on the sliding scale, the revenues would be double what they are right now. So there it's not like, yeah. It's still an increase. So Kurt, do you? Okay, that's great. Thank you, Michelle. Kurt, do you? Do you want to refine your language, revise your language? I mean, we don't, you don't have anything written down. I mean, we haven't seen anything written down so we don't know exactly what your language is, but do you want based on what you've heard? From Michelle. What would what is it that you'd like to do with regards to clarifying or withdrawing or rewriting your amendment.

[129:01] I'm happy to write it down and send something. I do not want to revise it at this point. I think that somebody building a 4,000 square foot house. And is paying. 2 and a half 1 million 3 million dollars just to construct the house, they can afford $250,000 of cash and I think it's completely appropriate to request that of them they will they will have gardeners and cleaners and workers coming in all the time and put very significant, burdens on our housing. Lower income, middle income housing. And so I think that it's completely appropriate to, to me and higher caching from them. Okay. Okay, then we. Just quickly responding to Georgia, I think you're absolutely right. It'll drive up. Oh, the inclusionary housing program to some extent it reduces the site cost, right?

[130:04] There's residual value calculations, but then to some extent it also increases the price of unit, but that's true of all of them. And if we're going to increase the price of a unit I would rather be increasing the price of a 4 million dollar unit than a 500,000. My point was that was that the unintended consequences of when you start layering on 2 to $300,000 for a single family home. It will create incentives. It will basically inflate the entire single family home market. I don't I don't know again this is just a reaction to what you said so I I just think we should be careful with that stuff because it might have an unintended consequence of raising the entire market because it's not 2 to 3 million dollars of raising the entire market because it's not 2 to 3 million dollars to build the entire market because it's not 2 to 3 million dollars to build a 4,000 square foot house. It's at least a million to a million and a half of that is just to buy the land currently in Boulder.

[131:04] And so the construction and then you create other sort of like, okay, what does someone do? Does someone piecemeal a renovation that looks like a renovation, but it's really just a reconstruction to avoid fees. At some point, that type of stuff happened. So I'm not, I'm not saying I just, I'm not educated enough to say that that's a good idea. Without really understanding it more. It sounds like what Michelle said is, to a certain extent what staff is already posing something like that. They just they want to make sure that the thresholds make sense. Which I think is kind of what I'm saying and maybe even what you're saying, we're just coming out of it from different perspective. I just don't think we have a lot of information. To make those specific recommendations. Well. So, Curt, if we could please, if we could ask you to write what you want us to vote on, because right now we're talking about it. Yep. We're talking about, so if you could write down what you'd like us to vote on.

[132:01] Yep, sounds good. And then that would be great. And then, because we don't have a second yet. So I will send something to Dev and maybe we can go around to other people. And, George, you raised your hand. Yeah, I had a question and I should brought this up earlier to staff. Relative but it kind of precipitated this this discussion contraceptated in my mind which is We've got these what seems like proposed, fees, cash and low fees. And then, you know, I heard from Jay, you know, our costs are escalating it at astronomical rates for different things. Has has anyone taken a look at actually making sure that our cash and Lou fees keep up with escalation over the next, you know, few years and this is there an escalator that you guys looked at putting on top of us? Oh yeah, there is. Sorry, just checking on my. It's a, it's a cost of construction index. There are 2 of them.

[133:09] I would have to look up the exact name, but it would be that we would look at a average between these 2. It's what the consultant recommended would be an annual adjustment similar to what we do now, capped at 5%. These 2 cost of construction indexes average about 4.6% increase per year right now or over the last few years. That's the information that the consultant gave us. So, and that's why we would do that a feasibility study again in 5 years to make sure that we're tracking correctly. Got it. Thank you. That's my question. I do the only other follow up is just. Why tap it if cost of construction is going up and we're trying to build housing. Why why not keep it along with whatever index?

[134:02] Well, it may also include so what we've used in the past is the trailing average to take out the ups and downs. Whatever method we're using to adjust the cache and loo. Because big jumps, the construction projects are in multi-year development phase. And to escalate the cash and lose significantly between one year to another can really wreak havoc on things. And so we probably would also have a trailing average, calculation in there. It's just because taking out the ups and downs is. You know, it kind of makes sense because these developments look at a number early on and if that number changes significantly in one year or 2 years it can it can be a big problem for them. So if we cap it. What'll happen is in 5 years if we're not keeping up then we can decide to make an adjustment. But that way there's some, the, the calculation that the development is using to determine how much their cash and loop can go up in a given year.

[135:03] They've got some way of building in that increase. Like the maximum is 5% they can build that in. Yes. Yep. Yeah. Okay, I think. Yeah. Can I ask the editorialized slightly? So if you look at personal linkage fee. There is no escalator and you will ask you waiter for that. It's it's $30 per square foot. So if you think about what we're imposing on housing and comparing that to commercial development. Just food for thought. And appreciate that. Maybe it's time to, maybe it's time to revisit the commercial linkage fee. Oh god knows if anyone building. Office building anytime soon. Okay, Kurtz language is ready for us and Devin's going to put it on the on the screen. Can you make it a little bit bigger? Evan, sorry.

[136:00] Okay, you want to make your motion your amendment please? Yeah, I move that the board recommend to City Council that per square foot cash, rates not be reduced to single family houses. Okay, do we have a second? Well, that's easy. No second has been. Yeah, that's easy. Curt, you did you want, do you want to revise it in some way that might generate a Second. No, if anybody else as a preferred amendment related to this, and wants to make it, I would. Good, potentially second that. Okay, I'm George Justina, your hand is up. Okay. Curt, you had us, so that Chris. Amendment fails because it did not get seconded. You did have, you had to discuss the second amendment that had to do with the income.

[137:05] Qualifying, deed restricted. Live in owner question. Did you want to make an amendment to that? Yeah, I'm not gonna make it, an amendment on that. I think staff had good responses. They understand the concerns and I think that they have a way to deal with that. I think, and good responses, they understand the concerns and I think that they feel that they have a way to deal with that. Okay, Laura. So I have a question about that. Could we show the language again on that one? I think it was 9 dash. Something, 13. 9 13 9. I think it was 9 13 9 is the is what kind of referenced. 9 13 9. Yeah, I guess my question is. If we can pull it up, would it be useful to insert the single word? Occupants, the initial owner occupants doesn't have to meet the the income requirements. But then that would imply that any subsequent owner occupant.

[138:04] So if the person living in the house changes, right, if the primary person owner occupant changes, such as with Kurt's concern of an LLC changing hands. Would that. Would that be helpful? Would that be a helpful clarification? So I guess I'm looking to staff to say would inserting that word be helpful or if you already got it covered, you don't need that. I think that would be hard to enforce because we don't know who lives in homes. It really has to do with ownership. So, when the ownership changes, the new owner will have to income qualify. And one reason that this exists is because A single family home doesn't have a lot of options for how to meet IH. They don't owe a unit. They, they, they can pay cash. But it is useful for us as a city to have a section, a second option for them.

[139:01] They may not like it. They may not use it, but it is helpful for us to have more than one option . And so the other option is you could make your home a affordable. Nobody's ever done it because it honestly doesn't. Okay. Probably make a lot of economic sense. And if you do that, then you don't have to income qualified to live there. It's an option never been used. They typically always pay cash and loo, but it is helpful from a legal perspective to have more than one option. Okay, thank you. I withdraw my suggestion. Appreciate that. Okay, so I'm gonna reread the motion and then we'll vote on it. Planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance 8 6 0 one amending chapter 9 13 inclusionary housing section 9 dash 2 dash 14 site review in section 9, 16 1. General definitions, BRC, 1,981 modifying affordable housing requirements in incentives and setting forth related details.

[140:02] Perfect. We didn't hear you. Yes. Okay. Thank you. George. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Laura. Lisa. Mark and Sarah is a yes, so it passes 6 0. Now I have a separate motion. I'm sorry, Kurt. What did you, your hand is up? Sorry, go ahead. I'd like to say something very quickly at the end. Okay, so I have a suggested separate motion which have Devon has and Devin if you could please put it up Okay, so this is a suggested motion. I'm making a motion planning board recommends to City Council that it explore diversion of more cash and leaf funds for the purpose of additional scatter site acquisition in the city. Is there a second? Laura seconded it. Yes, of course.

[141:01] I actually have a question for you, Sara. For clarification. Are you I assume that the scatter site acquisition I don't know if that is limited to middle-income housing or missing middle housing. Can can staff explain what kinds of housing are acquired? Because I think Sarah, you're trying to target a particular type of housing with this. Trying to get I'm trying to get the middle income housing. Topic back on the table. Definitely. Yes, so I'm just not sure if the scattersight acquisition is limited to that or if it's like all kinds of housing like is it apartment buildings? Is it condos? Is it? No, no, I think it's all that I'll let J answer. It could be condos, but I think I let J answer. Yeah, I definitely could be condos. But I would. Suggest. Adding middle income ownership. Okay, perfect. Just to be super clear for council because they may not know what scattered site acquisition is but currently the program is focused on We try.

[142:00] But they wouldn't, how could they not know? Okay, alright, Mark, I'll come to you in a second. I'm gonna revise the language so that it reflects J's suggestion and I'll come to you. So the mode it would read motion recommending the city council that explore diversion of more cash and loo funds for the purpose. Of additional middle income. Scattershite scatter site excuse my language scatter sight acquisition in the city. Middle income housing but what's the So. Okay. Ownership, I think, I think is the word ownership. That. Middle income ownership. Do I need the word opportunities in there, Jay, or is that fine? That's fine. Okay. before I move on, I'm I will need a second for us to have a discussion so Mark, let me remake the motion and then. We'll see if there's a second. If there's not, then there's no point in discussing. Just this would be a time. I just have a I have a suggested boarding change that before you have a second will be easier.

[143:09] Great. Okay. To accommodate. And that is. I believe it should say motion recommending city council. That they direct the city manager to explore. City Council. Theoretically. Doesn't direct doesn't, A, explore anything and be can't really direct. Jay or any any staff to do anything other than a city manager So. Okay, motion recommended to city council that it direct. City manager. To explore diversion of more cash and live funds for the purpose of does that properly capture your your thoughts, Mark. Thank you. Yes, yeah. But I don't know if Jay or anyone wants to, Michelle wants to, what I just said, but.

[144:02] Jay has his hand. Jay has his hand up. Okay. Oh, No, I think it's probably everyone. That was good clarification. Okay, excellent. Any other clarifications before I? Call, read it again and ask for a second, see if I could give a second. Okay, planning forward, recommends the city council that it direct the city manager to explore diversion of more cash and leave funds for the purpose of additional middle income ownership. Gather site acquisition in the city. Do I have a second? All second. The mark is a second. Is there any discussion of this? Laura. So I didn't know whether to do this after the second or before, but I think I would be more comfortable with this motion if it is broader because this implies that we know that the best way to get more middle income ownership opportunities is scatter site acquisition. And I would love to see a broader exploration of all the possible ways that we could get middle income ownership including scatter site acquisition.

[145:06] So I would recommend a wording change, a friendly wording change if appropriate, if Sarah would consider it and mark as the second. Okay. To say direct the city manager to explore. Additional opportunities to add middle income ownership. Tools such as additional cash and loo for scatter site acquisition in the city or something to that effect. I just would like to make it broader because I'm not a hundred percent sure that This is absolutely the best way to do this. I just would like to see it more further explored. Okay. Lisa. Yes, Lisa. May I, Jeff? Yeah, and well, I don't know if you'd entertain it at all, but I think you keep it maybe exactly as written. But then add. A comma after ownership. And say like including. Potentially or something or including scatter side acquisition that way you kind of keep all the wording ahead fine so motion recommended to city council that it direct city manager deliver diversion But more CL funds for the purpose of additional medical income home.

[146:07] Home ownership should it be home ownership middle income ownership including potentially additional scatter slide. Acquisition in the city. And I appreciate that, Lisa. I think that that still focuses on how do we direct the cash and loo money. Yeah. And I think that there might be other options such as encouraging home donation or encouraging duplexes and triplexes that are deed restricted that don't necessarily stick to diversion of cache and loopholes, which is why I suggested changing the wording the way that I did but I completely appreciate what you're trying to do to keep it simple. So I would say, I actually don't want to change the language because . There We have the cat, the cash in lieu. Can be redirected. And or not redirected but divided up and I would given that the city council wanted the staff to pursue.

[147:11] Middle income ownership opportunities and then made a complete U-turn and did away with whatever was in. And I understand why they did. But we we do know that the We know that this particular tool. Can work and we know that there's cash and loop coming in. And I'm, I, we can maybe have a. Second, second separate motion. That speaks specifically to exploring the wide range, but I'd very much like to stick with this specific. The recommendation and happy to vote for a second motion that is broader if you don't mind. Okay, Lisa, you still have your hand up. Do you wanna? Okay, all right, so I will reread this motion.

[148:02] We've had a second and then we can vote on it. A planning board recommends the city council that it direct the city manager to explore diversion of more cash and leave funds for the purpose of additional middle income ownership. Through to be through scatterside. Gather fight. Acquisition in the city. No. Alright, Lisa. Yes. Mark. Yes. Yes. Yes. George. Laura. Sarah is a yes. So it passes 5 1. Lisa, Laura, did you want to make a separate motion? That does create the recommendation for an expanded exploration. Or exploration of expanded opportunities. Let me, does anybody else have something that they want to recommend?

[149:03] Oh, not on this. No, no, no, I have a different motion. Okay, George. Go ahead with your emotion, George. I might think mine would be separate. So. You go ahead. Sure, I, I pasted it into the chat. Someone can put it up. Okay. Devon and his magic cut and paste. So, I thought what Jay brought up was actually really, really interesting. That our commercial linkage fee does not have a, an escalator on it. And I don't think that makes any sense, especially with what we just talked about. So my motion would be to direct the city manager to have staff explore. An escalation metric on the commercial linkage be consistent with the escalation that we just that we that's in this ordinance to match it up to keep pace with cost of development and construction for inclusion.

[150:06] I'm a total second on that. It seems like it to me it just seems like an oversight. With, what might be out there today. It obviously doesn't match up with what we just talked about. Kurt, you have your hand up. Did you want to say something? Yeah, I just had a question. When you say consistent with the escalation metric, you're implying that they Did it necessarily be the same escalation? I'm just thinking that No, that's a good, that's a good nuance. No, that's why I'm consistent because I think that there might be some different metrics used for commercial construction and residential construction, but we all know that costs are escalating across the board. So there may be, you know, RS means might be different for commercial obstruction than residential. But it should be consistent in the way that we think about it because ultimately what we're trying to achieve I think is to keep pace so that these programs are funded.

[151:06] Adequately as costs escalate. So I would support this. It would just be nice to have some clarification on that because It doesn't read completely that way to me. Good, but I agree with the sentiment. Yeah, totally open to that because that's what's intended. I just don't know how to work it better. . So would it just simply say after the commercial linkage. That is. Try to the escalation of instruction loss. If like, so rather than. Like a CIP. Or you know, CPU or these other things just. We let them. Figure out the appropriate construction cost.

[152:01] Metric to try it too. But it or index, maybe the other word would be index. To a control. Yeah, it was just, I hear what you're saying. It just, it's kind of based on what Michelle said. It's so nuanced in their language relative to this averaging and capping and different things that they're using. I just I want to make sure it's that's why I use consistent whether it's something it's just something similar, maybe it's similar. Okay. What about modeled upon? That is modeled upon the escalation metric. Yeah, that's great, Moore. Yeah. That was for that. Laura you have your hands up and I don't know whether you were responding to Okay, alright, so, where, George, can you make sure that Devon and you are making the change in the right place? So motion recommending that City Council direct, city manager to explore the addition of an escalation.

[153:01] On the commercial linkage fee. Model upon The escalation metric used within the inclusion housing ordinance. So you have Escot, your, yeah. So it's already, yeah. Yeah, just sorry. And then you can lose you after escalation metric. Get rid of that is consistent with the escalation metric. Yeah. Yeah, from, Yeah. Okay, so. George you want to I've wanted to George read it and I seconded it George she wanted Can I just suggest? I'm sorry, just to make the language very clean. I would just end the sentence at development and construction period because I think that saying for inclusionary housing gets confusing.

[154:06] Sure, that's fine. Anyone have any other suggestions, otherwise I'll read it off and we can. Okay, no hands at this point. So George, please reread it. Yeah, motion recommending the city council direct. The city manager to explore the addition of an escalation metric on the commercial linkage fee, modeled upon the escalation metric used within the inclusionary housing ordinance to keep pace with costs of development and construction. Yes. Yes. Alright, Kurt. George? Mark. Lisa. Yes. Yes. Yes. Laura. And Sarah is a yes, it passes 6 0. Alright, Laura, you're up. If you, if you do have language for another motion. No, I think I'm good. I think staff have heard that we're interested in exploring additional ways to get middle income ownership opportunities.

[155:02] I also want to put in a plug for I've said this before. Just really briefly, financial literacy, you know, homeownership is not the only path to generational wealth and financial stability. Okay. But most people don't get financial literacy if they don't get it from their family of origin or the people they hang out with. Okay. It's something that I feel like the city should provide education on. So I'm gonna put in a plug for for that as well. Oh. I'm gonna say that a lot. I don't know where it goes. I'm not going to make a motion about it, but I really feel like the city should pay attention to that because I think a lot of people are looking to their housing to provide their financial stability. It is not the only or necessarily even the best way to do that. And there are other reasons to want to own a home, but financial literacy. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. All right, so we have completed our public hearing item. Wait, Curt has his hand up. He wants to say, I'm, I'm sorry, Kurt, I had forgotten. Oh, that's okay. I just wanted to quickly say that to me the biggest part of this ordinance change moving to a first square foot cash in lieu and I just really appreciate that I think that's a great change and I really appreciate that that staff is.

[156:13] Moving forward on that, so thank you. Okay, staff. Thank you so much. Please go forth and live your lives and at least for another week. Meanwhile, we will go to matters from the planning director city attorney and the planning board. Bye, Jay and Michelle and Sloan. Yeah, thank you. I want to thank the HHS staff for all their time this evening and of course all the hard work which is really the city is an organization's work and we we appreciate the partnership with them and lots of interaction between our 2 teams. And really appreciate them and the work that we do together. To complement things through zoning and housing policy.

[157:02] It's a it's a very interconnected. So thank you. Sorry if I missed somebody there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Nice. Alright, see you later. Alright, matters from Planning, Management Planning Director. Yeah, you know, I'm getting excited about the retreat that's coming up. I think everybody is planning to be there. We are working, to get that finalized in terms of, logistics and agenda and all that stuff with the. You put that's been provided by the subcommittee working on that. We continue to work now with recognition that the end of the year is kind of in our sites and so. Many many many work program items that we've got. Set for ourselves just in terms of Operational excellence and you know, many, many priorities or. Are all kind of very much in our, sites.

[158:07] So we continue to look forward on those. Appreciate as always all the hard work and dedication of you all and Okay, that really concludes my comments for tonight. Happy to answer any questions. Anyone have questions for Brad? Okay. Anyone on planning board have, comments or questions or topics they would like to raise. Okay. Real quick, I don't know if Devon or Laurel had anything. Nothing for me. Thank you, though. Nothing for me there. Alright, and Kurt has his hand up. Yeah, just quickly as the liaison for the bullet junction phase 2, I just wanted to report back to City Council passed the changes to both junction phase 2. They did not accept our recommendation regarding the change to neighborhood TOD. Otherwise they passed it. So that's great.

[159:06] Okay, thank you, Kurt. Mark. Just as a bit of a, a debrief, I thought that, the second motion that we asked 6 0. Was at a super appropriate and separate motion and I just thought that was really smooth and great and I. I appreciate us handling that in that manner and I thought it worked really well. So kudos to us for that. Okay No, nothing but off for me. Okay, anything in terms of, calendar check, Devon? Have people to people that if they're not going to be, if they're not going to be able to attend a meeting to let let them know, let Devin know. Alright. Does anybody know is ML OK? Do we know? Her present, her absence is felt.

[160:00] I said, I send her an email and did not hear back from her. So. Thank you. Alright, I am unless someone raises their hand right now. I am going to adjourn this meeting at 8 39 and congratulate ourselves for finishing in a timely manner. Thank you all.