Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 13, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />Zuccaro stated that City Attorney Kathleen Kelly was in attendance for any legal questions. He <br />described the proposed inclusionary ordinance and its background, sharing that the City <br />recently endorsed the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership Regional Housing Strategy <br />to work toward 12% permanently affordable housing by 2035. Zuccaro shared the factors <br />influencing affordable housing, including a low inventory, an increase of jobs without an <br />increase in housing stock, and the cost of transportation in addition to the cost of housing for <br />workers who live far away from where they work. He described the provisions in the proposed <br />ordinance and the requirements for developers to meet the housing stock goals, including <br />options for developers to use fee -in -lieu, offsite building, and land dedication options instead of <br />building inclusionary units. Zuccaro explained that the City would likely partner with other <br />jurisdictions or the Housing Authority to administer in the ordinance and described the pros and <br />cons of the inclusionary housing approach. <br />Staff recommended approval of Resolution 5, Series 2021. <br />Hoefner asked about the mechanism for deciding who gets these houses, since he imagined <br />that there were more people who would want them than units that would ever be available. <br />Zuccaro replied that the question could not be answered before establishing concrete partners <br />but with a recent affordable housing project there had been higher demand than availability. He <br />thought a lottery might be an option. <br />Hoefner asked what percentage of the applicable population would be able to have units. <br />Zuccaro replied that there were several affordable housing units in the City, which represented <br />somewhere around 4% of the units in the City. At maximum future development with this <br />proposal there would probably be a few hundred additional units in the City and 12% of those <br />units would be affordable housing under this ordinance. <br />Diehl asked if the fee -in -lieu money would be set aside for affordable housing. <br />Zuccaro confirmed. The City could use it directly or use it in partnership with an entity like the <br />Housing Authority. <br />Moline asked if there had been any public comment, especially from the development <br />community. <br />Zuccaro replied that the staff packet addenda included written comments and at least one of <br />them was from a developer who had concerns about the ordinance. <br />Howe asked about studies that addressed consequences in weak housing markets. <br />Zuccaro responded that generally inclusionary development didn't tend to lead to inflated <br />housing prices, especially in a strong housing market, and he noted that he had not looked <br />deeper into the data with that in mind. He estimated that in a really weak housing market it could <br />have an impact, but that was far from the case in Boulder County. <br />Brauneis opened public comment. <br />Annmarie Jensen stated that she was the director of the East County Housing Opportunity <br />Coalition, which dealt with affordable housing issues in East Boulder County, and that there had <br />been written comments submitted from her coalition. She thanked the City for working on <br />affordable housing and noted that the plan tried to meet the issue but also would not be able to <br />